This is an archive of past discussions about Proto-Sinaitic script. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
As for dates, there are ~40 inscriptions. To get an accurate date range of usage for each letter, someone would have to collect which letters appear in which inscriptions, and have each inscription dated. I think that is out-of-scope for a synopsis. 72.216.186.113 (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Albright (1966) and Colless (2010) are now decoupled from [37]. Wow, that took a lot more time than I thought it would. But hopefully it's for the better. 72.216.186.113 (talk) 07:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Which sound is referred to by the s with over-dot (ṡ) in ṡamk at samekh?.
which transliteration system was used there -- dont imply different ones in a single article without purpose/stating of doing so
the only thing with my limited institutional access i could find in the internet, is by Shehadeh (1987) which i cant access as full text, in which ṡ is used for the merger of s1 and s3 of the Leslau-system (i.e. *š "shin" and *s "samekh"). if the author of that table is refering to this notation, then it should be removed as this script obviously does not exhibit this merging.
elsewise: what's the meaning of it?? satiate my curiosity before i perish :D
So, may i change it to "s", or shall i leave it as ambiguous as it is (by Shehadehs definition) since linguists are not unanimous to what "Shin" vs "Samekh" sound values were
(i.e. same situation as with PIE or better said its descendants like OHGerman or some Romance Languages as you can observe with certain varieties of Spanish or Portuguese: - original sole sibilant being somewhat retracted, e.g. apico-alveolar [s̺], - while sound shifts introduced a further "normal" i.e. nowadays all around the world common dental [s̪] from certain earlier instanced of /t/ by affrication to /t͡s/ (or even a original phoneme regardless) via later ongoing deaffrication; both sibilants coexisting and contrasting, ... due to push-effects their distinguishability increased by the newly introduced [s̪] pushing the older [s̺]'s already hushing sound quality to something like [ʃ] ... as we can observe in German, preserved before stops, e.g. stone vs stein [ʃtain] , but salt vs salz [salt͡s] -- note here the affrication of the final /t/ too. confer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_alveolar_fricative#Voiceless_apico-alveolar_sibilant)
In the latter case of reflecting this "uncertain" /s/ phoneme, may i change every such "s" of the reconstructed names into bearing ṡ ?
Sometimes there are these Proto-Sinaitic things they call waws that look like later qs and I think that's no good. Should be treated as no good unless a scholar explicitly makes an argument that accounts for it. I was gonna put that under "Q" but it's not Q's fault. Temerarius (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
The Qs have two lines from the center or otherwise have an 8 shape. However, I don't know about the Ws (could be descended from a mace, been made independently, or just not exist at all). INFIYNJTE (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
But it claims that Dag is a mistake, and originally the proto-sinaitic fish glyph is supposed to be Samk. The blog mentions that it morphed in usage from fish, to spine/support. It also claims that there's evidence of hieroglyph F37A being used in place of hieroglyph K1, though it doesn't mention where that source came from. 72.216.186.113 (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Still, one of the Proto-Canaanite glyphs for support has triangular shapes rather than straight ones (center glyph in Colless's) and could represent a fish. INFIYNJTE (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
The word "samk" meant fish in South Semitic languages, while Proto-Sinaitic was developed in the Northwest. Hence, the word for fish was most likely "dagg" (and "nun" if ancient Hebrews migrated from Akkad to Egypt), not "samk".
Colless 2014: the "Crypt Cracker" attempts to debunk the Goldwasser hypothesis
Following up where I earlier said I'd read this paper.
"nfr hieroglyph (F38) for tet in the protoalphabet, an icon that is rather opaque and not self-explanatory." p 79 nfr and union are sometimes confused i think
kbšn mš "melt furnace" is fun vocabulary
says rebus principle preceded acrophony. These texts can be read either way and sometimes the diff between the two is subtle.
In the syllabary, a picture of a door evoked the word daltu (door) and acrophonically this yielded the syllable DA; in the consonantary (the protoalphabet) it was D."
pg 85 "A female double breast has no Egyptian prototype." Pair of breasts, that is. There are two egy glyphs for a single female breast. This actually emphasizes that the singular šad is silly to use in our context.
pg 87 nfr = tab = good = t requires Egy literacy
pg 88 Mention of "spine" as possible source for samek is worrying for me as a reader of Colless and he doesn't explain anything about it
89 Kapp mentioned as palm of hand, and palm branch
Fish and door "must" be different sounds he says. I have no idea about fish and door.
you can interpret a sign: logographically, rebogrammatically, syllabically, consonantally,
"Strangely, Goldwasser allows" classified for male name but Anat is pictured
pg 88 he doesn't have a single option to offer for "pk 'l" ??
pg 95 Colless feels improperly lording or victorious toward Goldwasser, it sours me on the whole paper. I get the feeling he doesn't like her or has a competitive streak. He's acting like the arguments he's just posed are airtight when they're various and small thinksome things.
Rating: high importance paper, must-read for editors of this subject. Clarifies the meaning of Goldwasser's paper and the arc of scholarship. Quality is unsatisfying but above average for the niche.
Colless thinks like a locksmith. That's good for crossword puzzles but slightly misapplied here? It's a messy topic full of amibguities.
The last two sentences of the paper are good:
"...1000 BCE when there were no picture-signs. But at that time they would be saying, so to speak, “D is for Door (Dalet)”, whereas at the start it was “Door [dalt] is for D”, that is, practising acrophony. Ultimately, this is the great boon that Orly Goldwasser has bestowed on her readers: people have learned that the alphabet was indeed formed by means of the acrophonic principle."
I'm going to look up the izbet sartah and the bet shemesh items mentioned
It's dubious, but apparently the letter names have changed as per a 1904 theory by Theodor Nöldeke (stated in the Phoenician alphabet page). 184.103.165.11 (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
I looked at the Phoenician alphabet article the other day and I thought "Wow! There are a lot of errors here. We'll need to clean those up after we've resolved them at the Proto Sinaitic article..." but the question remains: where is the good scholarship? As I stated above, I think it could be productive to start an early alphabet discussion group and brainstorm some papers. The subject is so empty it'd be easy to contribute some original research. (I'm aware of the implications of "original research".) Temerarius (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
If you look at "uncertain.jpg" here, File:Uncertain.jpg nope that's not it, Uncertain.JPG there we go, some of these creative suppositions from the scholars were based on possible bullshit. I love creative and groundbreaking connections, but not when they're wrong. Temerarius (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The Phoenicians changed many of the names of the letters (Naḥš to Nun, Ṣimaḥ? to Ṣade), and many others merged (e.g., Šamš and Ṯann/Ṯad rebranded to Šin; Ḥaṣr and H̱ayt keeping the former's glyph but the latter's name, Naḥš to Nun, etc.). INFIYNJTE (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
You chose a hieroglyph for growing grapes completely out of your imagination. That's not in the sources you're referencing. And look closer at the glyph, they're growing melons or something on those. They're supports meaning weight-bearing, which you can see in the fruit. I just tried to delete that and screwed up the formatting, can you do it? And your conception of the development, as if the phoenicians were responsible for the conceptual changes you're imagining. Not right. And even if you were right, the papers aren't right, so you still wouldn't be. Can't you see that some of these don't many ANY sense? Temerarius (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
You're under no obligation to restate Every claim people make in Every paper. You can use your own good judgment, and refrain from adding the things that plain don't make sense. This is a discretion every editor has all the time. Temerarius (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
In fact, I didn't even build the table nor attribute the hieroglyphs (except the mammalian tusk glyph last week). All I ever did in this article prior to February was small edits, uploads of possible Proto-Sinaitic glyphs (like the ẓil fiasco), and even rearranged correspondences between Proto-Sinaitic and Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic letters.
All I did back then was build upon what was already there, rather than building it myself, so do not give me credit that does not belong to me. INFIYNJTE (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
oh, sorry. That was me, not INFIYNJTE. The grapes thing came from Colless's table, when I was trying to segregate the references as per another IP user's comment on the "Synopsis". I found that about half of it was attributing Albright, the other half from Colless, and the hieroglyphs from Simons or unsourced. Lundin compares the West and South Alphabets, but that's not even a column in the table. I tried to include everything for who claimed what, even if contradictory, but I guess that was too messy... 72.216.186.113 (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Let's get this clear. I did not build the table nor attribute the hieroglyphs. That was done by past editors months to years ago, with the present-day major revision led in December by an IP address user that introduced the ziq, ġinab, ṣirar, ṯad', ẓil, etc. interpretations from Colless's source. In fact, I sometimes went the direction opposite to the one you disagree with, like when I removed the ẓil row since it wasn't found in any inscription to my knowledge.
However, I am intrigued by your suggestions and perhaps it is necessary we gather to assess whether the current interpretation of the letter names is viable, like I proposed a week ago.
This is just speculation, but it is a possibility that many scholarly articles are based on attempting to make connections between discovered glyphs and Egyptian ones and throwing in a name that "fits" (like the boxy glyph was connected with M43 and the word ġinab "grape" was chosen for it since it begins with the attributed phonetic sound) INFIYNJTE (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
What we need to understand is
Proto-Sinaitic and Phoenician are different scripts and it is possible there isn't a line of direct descent.
It is important to discuss each Proto-Sinaitic symbol instead of taking each scholar at face value.
There could be creative "yellow" scholarship involved in the sources, like with Colless's Ẓil.
Great point they could. It'd be nice for us to get connected with some ancient Egypt specialists. Good to know if those 𓉽 served as buttresses for tents, or what. Temerarius (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion suggests we should split out the content in this article about the Proto-Canaanite script into a new article. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Concurring with the talk in 2018, the sources supporting P-C weren't reliable enough, the inscriptions were too short, and decipherment confidence was low.
The best we can do is make an article about a hypothetical script used by the Canaanites that is yet to be fully understood, but that's about it. INFIYNJTE (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
We know a fair amount about some of the early Canaanite inscriptions from a physical and archaeological viewpoint, but as I said above, the inscriptions come from various times and places and are rather short, so it's hard to even assemble a coherent overall list of symbols (as is possible for Sinaitic proper), which means that a complete or near-complete alphabet is definitely not known... AnonMoos (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
That means we can create a coherent table of possible symbols in the article, including the ś glyph found in the Lachish comb inscription.
Wadi el-Hol is in Middle Egypt, not in the Sinai Peninsula nor in Canaan. The problem with the terminology is that it implies the location is the determining factor, when in fact, it's more of a matter of time, which Simons states clearly: "The principal debate is between an early date, around 1850 BC, and a late date, around 1550 BC. The choice of one or the other date decides whether it is proto-Sinaitic or proto-Canaanite, and by extension locates the invention of the alphabet in Egypt or Canaan respectively." 72.216.186.113 (talk) 05:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't find that lachish comb paper very convincing. I think it's creative. If there were a connection to the isolated Ugaritic script, it'd be a blaring klaxon, not this tiny stuff. And that Mario-Bros-turnip glyph, I think it might have a couple of 𓉽 on it? Instead of that padlock shape. https://imgur.com/a/jECK7nK If not that it might be 𓄥 F36 lung and windpipe or 𓄤 F35 heart and windpipe? Variations on those were popular. It's lovely that they gave photos under different lighting of the artifact. Temerarius (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
The Ugaritic script seems to descend from Proto-Canaanite, which seems to contain the ś glyph. It is likely Ugaritic phased out the bag glyph reconstructed from the sentence ytš ḥṭ ḏ lqml śʿ[r w]zqt
That being said, if the glyph has 𓉽 shapes, then it could perhaps represent a field with plants, leading to a rediscovery of the śadaw "field" glyph, but that's just a theory that needs much more support for it to be viable. INFIYNJTE (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
How about the šadai "breasts" glyph? This one takes after 𓐮 Aa32 but I can't think of a word for "bow" that starts with any s. Wiktionary says that shin comes from some other Egyptian bow glyph, which isn't right. Temerarius (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Hm. This gives rise to a theory that perhaps one of the ṯ glyphs was used to represent ś (just like śamš "sun" represents š), though this might be reasonably defeated by the difference between the Lachish ś and P-C ṯad/ṯann glyphs. INFIYNJTE (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
1. Sms: snake-encircling-sundisk "shamash" glyph here? Is this one the basis of 𓇴 sms sun being on there? If this is the only attestation of it, I think it's weak. Temerarius (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Egyptian has a symbol for breasts. (𓂑 D27, 𓂒 D27A)
The Semitic speakers are copying familiar symbols from a language they have no literacy in, as Goldwasser 2006.
They copy 𓐮 Aa32 "bow" glyph. To them it looks "more like breasts than breasts", so it functions as š šaday.
They become pointy: 𐤔 is the later form
Just like the bow looked more like breasts than a bow, this one looks like sharp teeth more than it does breasts. It becomes shin, teeth. The Semitic semiotic stepladder. Temerarius (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Well, of course you have the hoax? texts at Timna. "[1]Wimmer, Stefan Jakob. "A proto-sinaitic inscription in Timna/Israel: New Evidence on the Emergence of the Alphabet." Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 2.2 (2010): 1-12" and there is a table of characters at the end of "[2]Simons, Frank. "Proto-Sinaitic–progenitor of the alphabet." Rosetta 9 (2011): 16-40". And Parker mentions a couple I am unsure of, a dagger etc "[3]Parker, Hope. "THE PROTO-SINAITIC INSCRIPTIONS AT SERABIT EL-KHADIM IN THEIR ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT." Ägypten und Levante/Egypt and the Levant 32 (2022): 269-311".Ploversegg (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Although no longer mainly found in Sinai, the script is still described as Proto-Sinaitic by archeologists and hence we should keep it like that. Pretty much a name that has lost its original meaning. INFIYNJTE (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
See LeBlanc, Paul D. (2017). Deciphering the Proto-Sinaitic Script: Making Sense of the Wadi el-Hol and Serabit el-Khadim Early Alphabetic Inscriptions. Subclass Press. p. Preface. ISBN978-0-9952844-0-1. Its importance lies in the fact that proto-Sinaitic represents our alphabet's earliest developmental period. So far, only two major discoveries of these inscriptions have been made. The first batch came to light in 1904-1905, in the Sinai, when Hilda and Flinders Petrie discovered what are now referred to as the Serabit el-Khadim inscriptions. The second group was discovered by John and Deborah Darnell in as recently as the 1990s, in Middle Egypt, and is known as the pair of Wadi el-Hol inscriptions.
Woodard, Roger D. (2008). The Ancient Languages of Syria-Palestine and Arabia. Cambridge University Press. p. 104-105. ISBN978-1-139-46934-0. The problem of the Proto-Canaanite inscriptions is directly linked with that of the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions. The latter are a group of inscriptions, numbering about thirty, discovered near Egyptian turquoise mines in the Sinai, dated variously to the eighteenth or fifteenth centuries BC, which have been only partially deciphered but which seem to represent a form of early West Semitic (for a recent overview with bibliography, see Pardee 1997b). Corresponding to these texts are a group of about twenty texts discovered in southern Canaan and spread over about five centuries, from the seventeenth century BC to the twelfth (Sass 1988, 1991). The state of preservation of these latter, Proto-Canaanite, inscriptions is even poorer than is that of the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions.
Golden, Jonathan M. (2009). Ancient Canaan and Israel: An Introduction. OUP USA. pp. 243–244. ISBN978-0-19-537985-3. By the beginning of the second millennium BCE (the late Middle Bronze Age in Canaan), the scribes of Ugarit began to use a new script based on twenty-seven cuneiform characters. The southern Canaanites also developed new scripts of their own, two variations in fact-Proto-Sinaitic and Proto-Canaanite-both of which were also based upon the use of acronyms (Albright 1966; Cross 1967; Naveh 1982). Unfortunately, only a few examples of each have been recovered to date, and the ones that do exist are mostly incomplete and therefore difficult to decipher. As a result, some fundamental questions regarding the time of the first Proto-Canaanite scripts and the origins of the alphabet remain unanswered... Proto-Sinaitic... Today archaeologists know of some thirty to forty Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions that have been found on statuettes and stelae and carved into the rock faces around Serabit el-Khadim... Proto-Canaanite... Further north, another version of this new script began to emerge. Current knowledge of this script, Proto-Canaanite, is based on some twenty-five inscriptions, the earliest dating to the late Middle Bronze Age and the latest appearing at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. These inscriptions, most of which were found in a relatively small area in the southern Shephelah, span much of the second millennium BCE, though there is a notorious fourteenth-century-BCE. gap from which no texts have been found... The earliest known example of a Proto-Canaanite inscription is one word incised on a bronze dagger discovered at Lachish of the MB2 (eighteenth to seventeenth century BCE) (Starkey 1934). At first these inscriptions appeared in rather pedestrian contexts-for example, potsherds from Gezer and Nagila-and may have been used to identify the potter. It is possible that this new script was used more informally at first, while Akkadian remained the official language, which is certainly plausible considering that the new script was more accessible and required less rigorous training. In the thirteenth and twelfth (and possibly eleventh) centuries BCE, Proto-Canaanite inscriptions appear more frequently in the archaeological record, and their distribution is more widespread, though still largely in the south. These include examples from Lachish, Beth Shemesh, and 'Izbet Sartah. The inscription from the 'Izbet Sartah ostracon seems to represent the exercise of a scribe-in-training. On one line appear the letters of the alphabet, but there are several omissions and departures from the order typical of the time, and several odd combinations of signs make portions of the inscription unintelligible (Mazar 1990). By this time, Proto-Canaanite was also used for religious purposes, as indicated by an inscribed ewer found in the Fosse Temple at Lachish (c. 1220 .c.E.), which bears a blessing to a goddess...The latest Proto-Canaanite inscriptions date to the eleventh century B.C.E. Examples from this time have been found at Rapa and Gerba'al, and a group of five inscribed arrowheads was found near el-Khadr, south of Bethlehem
I don't disagree with the motion, but exactly what problem is it meant to solve? I'd like to be specific about goals because the current article is in not-great shape, and it's probably not the editors' faults, but because the scholarship on the subject is quite poor. Temerarius (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
The best articles across our project have a clearly defined scope. The worst articles have vague scopes. The reason for this is that vague scopes in a free-to-edit encyclopedia mean different editors bring different interpretations, and thus edit over time with conflicting boundaries. Clearly defined scopes result in alignment between the article's editors, and the article iterates over times towards quality and excellence.
In order to achieve that here we have either two choices:
Bring together all relevant proto-Semitic scripts, whether from Sinai/Egypt or Canaan (i.e. the merge option above)
I think calling it the Canaanite script or alphabet sounds too sure. The main noun in the article title should be something like "development". Temerarius (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
No, because Proto-Canaanite itself is hypothetical. Best to use what we have (Proto-Canaanite alphabet) and state it is hypothetical and its shortcomings. INFIYNJTE (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
The name is wordy and we already have articles about the inscriptions. Meanwhile, there's already a "Proto-Canaanite Alphabet" article we could use for this split. INFIYNJTE (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
A question of scope, I'm interested in sites like Kuntillet Ajrud, Deir Alla, tel Arad. Those are on one side or the other of 800BCE. What set is this? I'd love a page about the alphabet's development during this period. Temerarius (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Onceinawhile -- The term "Proto-Semitic script" is unfortunately somewhat meaningless. But I support the proposal to make clear that only Serabit el-Khadim, and possibly Wadi el-Hol, are properly "Proto-Sinaitic"... AnonMoos (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
DO NOT MERGE -- "Proto-Sinaitic" refers to inscriptions largely found in one specific location. "Proto-Canaanite" is a more general term. Pre-1050 B.C. inscriptions found in Canaan proper are quite fragmentary and not well understood. Since they come from different times and places, it's hard to assemble a coherent alphabet. With Proto-Sinaitic, it's possible to at least compile a listing of different symbols, and many scholars accept that at least one word -- LB`LT -- has been deciphered. I don't see what would be gained by dissolving the circumscribed geography and chronology and limited certainties of Proto-Sinatic into the Proto-Canaanite zone of great ignorance... AnonMoos (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi @AnonMoos: I understand and recognize your point. My proposal is based on the current status of the two articles. This article (Proto-Sinaitic) explicitly includes Proto-Canaanite in its scope throughout, in each of the four paragraphs of the lede, in the Discovery section, in the Name section, and in the Inscriptions in Canaan section. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't think they should be merged. At least to me, the proto-Canaanite inscriptions on the Khirbet Qeiyafa Ostracon looks distinctively different from the proto-Sinaitic inscriptions. The former looking more abstract and closer to the Phoenician script. 2600:8800:80:78:4439:F5B6:845F:E611 (talk) 10:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
I think descent from hallul or any window to the later ה ח or anything inbetween is not possible. But I think this is one of the easiest ones to crack, because there are abundant comparative examples that could chart the way. Also, h is one of the easiest letters to spot in otherwise washed-out inscriptions. Temerarius (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't know where the "window" interpretation came from, though glyphs representing /h/ depict a person with their arms raised, which could either represent haw, hll "jubilation", or something else. INFIYNJTE (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Reinterpretations/inscriptions
T
𓄤 𓊖 nfr "beautiful" ṭab "good" is never taken for tet or taw that I can see. A symbol like the Egy. 𓄤 is taken for a qof-waw ligature by Albright for some reason. But I don't see it in the inscriptions as interpreted by the authors, so I'm gonna remove it. I also don't like the look of that compound bow, and shamash as snake-sun 𓇴 is if only on that Timna weight, creative and likely wrong. Can anybody show me these in the inscriptions or the boxy bow? To me, it looks like that table was made by people who read the references without attaining meaningful familiarity with them. Temerarius (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
The sun with Uraeus was chosen due to the lines in the š glyph.
Also, why would booby, out of all glyphs, be the one representing the š sound.
Can you tell me what is wrong with š as sun? Also, the image you showed doesn't look like Proto-Sinaitic at all, but rather like some early Phoenician scriptINFIYNJTE (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
What's wrong with it is I think they're drawing something that isn't there. Remember we're working with a tiny pool of very creative scholarship here. Goldwasser and whoever first pointed out the breasts meaning are the only points of light in a dark area. But if there is such a glyph, fine. I was only worried about it before I saw there was a second person seriously arguing for it. Temerarius (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm somewhat supportive of the śamš "sun" interpretation and it is likely that š was a less common phoneme, given how much of the words with š in Hebrew resulted from ṯ alveolarizing into s~š in various Semitic languages like Phoenician and Hebrew, which didn't happen fully in Arabic and Aramaic (example: ṯd', Hebrew: שד, Aramaic: תַּדָּא/𐡕𐡃𐡀, Arabic: صدر/ثَدْي) INFIYNJTE (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
However, the sun glyph likely faded away in favor of the ṯann/ṯd' glyphs as ṯ became alveolarized, with them becoming pointier and getting reinterpreted as šinn "tooth" by the time of the Phoenicians. INFIYNJTE (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I think most scholarship calls that a lampwick, and it's the second time it's on the chart, then the non-grape-vine thing, what does that have to do with grapes or ע? Where's the source say that? Temerarius (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
The ġinab hieroglyph is "vine on trellis", possibly denoting a grapevine, which conveniently fits with ġanbab/ġinab "grape", as per Colless and unicode. INFIYNJTE (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
They didn't grow grapes like that. It's convenient but it's not in the source and it's not correct. Possible, sure, we can talk about it but not in the article. Temerarius (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
On the contrary, I found a source that says grapes were grown on trellis.
It also has to do a lot with ġinab since the Hebrew word is עַנָב beginning with ע, the letter which merged with ġinab.
The problem is where the so-called ġinab symbol is depicted.
As part of the suggested rewrite, we need to discuss the inscriptions containing the Proto-Sinaitic script (or the similar) script to reinterpret the symbols and their meaning. INFIYNJTE (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
From Wadi El-Hol, I can see the following symbols (left-to-right)
Meanwhile, inscription 360 seems to show an early version of ṯann "composite bow" as well as ṯad "breasts", and maybe Coless's śamš (which is shaped similarly to ṯad) [the stricken variant of śamš is nowhere to be found]
You mean fig 360 for the one with the first and last legible being 𓐮? Same glyph, their arm's at a different angle at top and bottom writing it, or fatigued variation from ideal. Temerarius (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
wait, why are we reinterpreting the symbols?
In the "Wadi el-Hol inscriptions" section, it's already stated that Colless translated:
as well as two symbols similar to the bag turnip (349, 367), a razored head, scratch marks?, a circle, a square, a mace?, half a kapp, more scratch marks, and a literal P. INFIYNJTE (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
There was also two clear instance of Śamš in the Timna inscription, though the more simple form of the glyphs alongside its location might point to Proto-Canaanite instead of Proto-Sinaitic INFIYNJTE (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
What would cypriot have anything to do with serabit inscriptions.
At this point, knowing you were responsible for the šaddai edit for ś, I'm starting to think you don't know what you are talking about. INFIYNJTE (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Anyway, let's continue another day since I'm really exhausted (have been on this all day) and will probably go crazy if I continue. INFIYNJTE (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Since the reinterpretation (in accordance with the sources), the meanings and symbols have largely remained the same. In fact, we concluded with less symbols than some of the sources (we must always watch out for creative scholarship). INFIYNJTE (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Q
I think the common wisdom about qoph, that it's a needle and thread, is well supported. The proto sinaitic q that is claimed to be a monkey, sometimes it looks less like a monkey and more like one of these. https://imgur.com/a/AjoMyNz from https://archive.org/details/ERA42/page/n149/mode/2up?view=theater I know of one inscription where it does look like a monkey, but I'm not sure that's so widespread. If it were inkwell, that'd be like a pared down version of hiero number Y3 𓏞 scribe's gear. However, the fact that these examples of ink trays are symmetrical and the qophs aren't may speak against this idea. Temerarius (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
The one used by the Phoenicians was definitely Colless's "Qaw", not Qup.
The Phoenician alphabet seemingly inherited the name Qup as Qop but used the shape of "Qaw", which seems to depict a needle.
However, I haven't found any Semitic word for needle that starts with Q.
Edit: Nvm, the Hebrew word for line is קו, meaning the Proto-Sinaitic script most likely interpreted the needle eye as "line". INFIYNJTE (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Qaw, a measuring line? What was Colless's reference for that one again? I didn't immediately find it in "Comparative semitic lexicon phoenician and punic". That'd be a different instrument from needle and thread. I think lopsided and loopy ones like in Carchemish.png File:Carchemish.png could reflect a needle-threading action. The measuring line as a symbol of power, as in Descent of Inanna and IIRC goddess imagery in Petrie's Researches in Sinai, https://archive.org/details/researchesinsina00petruoft/ is a curious one with staying power. What was the Egyptian conception of it? Was it a hieroglyph? Is the letter A-looking thing in Shabti's grasps in Shabty of Amunemhat, ca. 1400-1336 B.C.E.,50.128.jpg a measuring line of... some kind? Sorry if silly question. Anyway it's A-shaped whatever it is. When I see a q-shaped measuring line, I'll be interested in seeing if the thread is visible in its eye. Temerarius (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Did they all collaborate on a paper? Albright's widely seen as full of shit. I like Colless because his paper has the šadi reference that I was seeking for some time. But I thought he was a little credulous with others' work that wasn't demonstrated. But you can't blame. I'll have to look again to remember Simons and Cross's papers specifically. Temerarius (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
That reminds me, do you think it'd be advisable to keep this discussion here for openness, or elsewhere for the sake of complying with -- WP:OR and getting in trouble for calling people full of shit. I'm open to moving some discussion that isn't meant to be here to a user page (like my https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Temerarius/Early_Alphabetic) or an appropriate Discord server I know. Wide open for discussion. Temerarius (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Wait, Albright is wrong? I thought he was the most reliable one, although I can tell since he clearly interpreted the inscriptions rather strangely (and he also associated a certain glyph with ḡ)
Yes, Albright's idea was descent from the hieratic or another non-hieroglyphic Egyptian way of writing. Reasonable assumption, but Goldwasser turned it all back round to the original hypotheses. Because it doesn't make sense. It's wrong. The alphabetic theory and acophonic or apophonic principle, whatever, wouldn't be able to function if the descent were like that. Hence, everything's highly conceptually bound at the early points. That's the thing you gotta understand to see the same things I'm seeing in these. Temerarius (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
The original theory was the proto sinaitic hypothesis, so to speak. Descent from hieroglyphs to P-Sinai, where the Albright "school" (I guess he had a school) made a different calculation here and inserted an intermediary. Goldwasser said "Hold on everybody, they had it right a century ago," which happens sometimes in these fields, and that's why she's got a hundred citations on that short, simple paper. She's the reason this technical term is enough note to even be an article, probably. This is best from my memory. Temerarius (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
But back then, they had a DIFFERENT hangup, where they wanted to make the grand unified theory that'd connect every unknown thing, like Minoan and Cypriot scripts even, to Egyptian. These interpretations that don't make sense were supposed to be ideas halfway between those imaginary evolutions, their missing links among phoenician, the rest of the scripts. That's why I mentioned uncertain.JPG above when I came across it. This is reflective of a confusion of Babel story way of seeing the topic. Temerarius (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
You should have asked me about this before when I said it didn't look like you read the papers. Wouldn've been a great opportunity. I'd love to put together some teaching materials for you. Have you found anybody else might wanna discuss this? I invited User :פעמי-עלי Temerarius (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
So, Goldwasser seems to coincide with my personal interpretation: Proto-Sinaitic were simplified and repurposed forms of Egyptian hieroglyphs. INFIYNJTE (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
but one part in the text under the STELA 92 section says "A new “link” is thus made; the “house” built by Orly Goldwasser collapses; her hypothesis is refuted." INFIYNJTE (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
The "Goldwasser hypothesis" taken here is that the P-Sinai scriptors were all illiterate in Egyptian? Then yes, I also hesistate. We certainly don't have enough of these inscriptions, or enough insight about them, to decide that's history. Not all Semitic people are in the "marginal" illiterate subset. Among other arguments. I don't even need to read all these 22 arguments, at least not tonight. Great tip, though. Temerarius (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I think "Goldwasser's Moral", so to speak, is not to take facile interpretations of hieroglyphs due to correspondences that require literacy. Temerarius (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I still don't get why you call it "šad(a)i", even though the Proto-Semitic word was ṯd'. Sure, ṯ eventually evolved into š, but quite after the time of Proto-Sinaitic. INFIYNJTE (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Okay but do you know how they infer the supposition you're repeating? It's kinda arbitrary; proto- means it's reconstructed. I think they chose the obscure word to write down there instead of the familiar one to tread round sensitive sensibilities. Temerarius (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Neither Egyptian nor Semitic was done moving their esses around by these times, or--they weren't borrowing shins and sameks between them with consistency until later. So much is in the air. This includes of course some ts and zs, however you want to write them. Temerarius (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
New scholarship has suggested that Ṡamekh, Šin, Ṣad, and Zayin originally had the sounds /ts/, /s/~/s̱/~/š/, /ts'/, and /dz/.
Page 267 of the scorpion spell from wadi hammamat: another Aramaic text RC Steiner is relevant to the phonemic development here. Temerarius (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
^Çambel, Halet (1999). Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions: Inscriptions of the Iron Age (3 pt.). Berlin New York: W. de Gruyter. ISBN3-11-014870-6.
We must remember that between the invention of the Canaanite alphabet and the flourishing of the Aramaic in Demotic script past hindreds of year, in which we know for sure that the pronounciation of letters like ṣ had changed. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk12:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Sinai rock drawings
Looking for a goad or a shepherd's crook? Try petroglyphs. They could confirm a letter.
Given how the Proto-Semitic word for sun is śamš [4] and not šamš, it is possible by acrophony that the sun glyph represents an ś sound instead of š.
However, the problems with this theory include:
- The reconstruction Śamš is likely based on Arabic šams (where ś > s and š are flipped), and it might not be known if other semitic languages followed the same pattern. However, Arabic is described as a very phonologically conservative Semitic language and hence, śamš could very well be the Proto-Semitic word.
- Akkadian, which is older than the Proto-Sinaitic script, renders sun as šamaš. However, it is possible this is a modification since Akkadian shifted various sounds including ṯ, so it is possible ś got somehow shifted to š.
- It is not known how Proto-Northwest Semitic would have rendered sun, though Ugaritic rendered it as šamšu. However, Ugaritic also lost the ś phoneme and is described as replacing ś with š, whereas Proto-Northwest Semitic still had it.
- The Proto-Canaanite lachish comb glyph for ś looked vastly different, having two dots and an open shape rather than anything resembling a sun.
UPDATE: I attempted to analyze Serabit 357 by transcribing it to Hebrew and altering between shin and sin; the best result I got is "נשמע" (to be heard), whereas sin never gave an actual result in any combination of letters.
Hence, my theory is incorrect and śamš (or even šamš) most likely represents š as initially believed. I also consider the possibility that the languages using Proto-Sinaitic lacked an ś sound, but I digress. INFIYNJTE (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I think it's impossible with the state of available material. What we should do is put together an alphabet discussion group, do some original research, and write our own papers. That way these articles about proto Sinaitic and Canaanite have something to refer to. Temerarius (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Onceinawhile already mentioned it, the problem with the article is the undefined scope. Right now, there's too much and too unfocused information. Personally, I think the page should just summarize what it is and the difference between it and Proto-Canaanite, summarize the discoveries, and summarize the popular hypotheses on the development. I think the "Inscriptions" section should be removed and just be links to their respective wiki pages under the "See also" section. The individual wikis should be like the Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon page where it has the different translations from different researchers highlighted. Controversially, I think the "Synopsis" section should also be removed. With everything clumped together and no formal consensus between all the letters it gets really confusing and becomes somewhat difficult to manage. I feel like it's better for each inscriptions page to have tables for the letters found on them. If needed, we can link to the table on the History of the alphabet page instead of having to maintain it in two places. 72.216.186.113 (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
It's harder to manage getting all inscriptions pages up to a certain level, with detailed alphabet charts. Seems ambitious. We'd need a wikiproject inscriptions. Temerarius (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I was saying it would be a big undertaking to bring each inscription page up to a certain standard. I'm a repeat editor of Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions and despite knowing the topic back and forth I don't have an alphabet up yet. Most individual inscriptions don't have editors willing to do hundreds of edits and so on. So to get this page, and all the others, up to reference-worthy would require a little planning. Hence a hypothetical Wiki-Project to organize it. Reifying alphabets is fun but it's carriage before horse. The inscriptions themselves need study, they're not well understood. Trying to pin down coherent ideas of what proto Sinaitic and proto Whateverelse is -- it's fine, it's not inappropriate, but it's trying to make too much out of too little. Too few papers. Too little knowledge. I'll state again I'm open to collaborating with a volunteer offsite on original research to serve the same goals. Does anybody want to volunteer to start Bet Shemesh ostracon or Izbet Sartah ostracon? From a quick look the latter seems genuine, quite important, almost not referred to. If there are more than one or two papers about these I'm looking in the wrong place. Temerarius (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
yeah, you're right. I'm being too ambitious. I think Onceinawhile just wants Proto-Sinaitic and Proto-Canaanite to be more clearly defined. 72.216.186.113 (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
To fix the issue once and in for all, I decided to replace the current table with a table of selected symbols from the three sets of Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions, Serabit El-Khadim, Wadi El-Hol, and Timna, and its correspondences to a reconstructed name, phonetic sounds (preserved), and the Phoenician abjad.
Feel free to revert to the old table if you feel this is too radical, although much of the old table's content was redundant and has already been transferred to "History of the Alphabet" (link to the article been embedded as a main article) since an alphabetic evolution is not wholly relevant to an article covering inscriptions. INFIYNJTE (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Currently, both "Serabit inscriptions" and "Wadi el-Hol inscriptions" sections have more information here than their respective main article pages. More than half the letters in the Synopsis need to have explainatory footnotes on them to make sense of why the letters are put where they are. The Reference section also has 52 items under it (ternary sources?), which is considerably a lot more than the primary and secondary sources listed in the Bibliography section. 72.216.186.113 (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
What l-Ba'alat? Spelling in infobox
I believe the key phrase was "beloved l-b'lt," not mt l b'lt. Where did this come from? It's in the infobox. I saw it on another page too. Temerarius (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
File:Ba`alat.jpg does appear to say mtlb'lt in the photo. It's not certain. 𐤁𐤏𐤕 is what I see on the upper right, with a partial house. Bat (goddess) maybe. If the eye isn't an eye, that mark there isn't makeup -- maybe a goose, and if the mark above it is a disk, then that could be son of Ra. Temerarius (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
For better pictures see https://www.jstor.org/stable/26732467. If you want to understand what is written in (modern) Hebrew, try to use Image Translation in Google Translate (or any other app because Google are evil...), and if you still don't understand you can ask me! פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk12:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Complaints have been raised about the table of symbols, including too many explanatory footnotes and the confusing nature of it.
Hence I propose recreating the table with rows and columns based on the symbols found in each inscription as opposed to the Phoenician order, and using discretion to determine which sources are more accurate. INFIYNJTE (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
You know what I'll just go through with it since the article went inactive.
Recently there has been a dispute primarily involving myself and Sinclarian regarding the sources.
The most prominent dispute involves the 𓊋-like glyph, where Sinclarian agrees with Colless it is Gimel while I, due to it lacking any semblance to gimel and looking strikingly similar to 𓊋 alongside the recently-added sources also concluding it is equivalent to Pe/Pi't.
As editors, we ought to resolve disputes, even if it means prioritizing accuracy over inclusion of all opinions. Hence, let us discuss this topic and present our arguments to prevent this from devolving into an edit war. Cnscrptr (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
First, I have my own opinion regarding Colless based on research.
Colless has made some breakthroughs, like connecting the snake-like glyphs with šamš and the ġ glyph with ġinab, although the connection could be dubious, but has also read too much into his own theories to the point of inaccuracy. He has also presented other unrelated glyphs like ziq and ẓil while comparing a glyph that resembles the egyptian corner glyph 𓊋 as gimel.
Overall, I think Colless is not an impeccable source for Proto-Sinaitic interpretation, and it is best to combine multiple sources to obtain the most accurate presentation of glyphs and their meaning. Cnscrptr (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
As far as I know, I did answer the question. I researched and found the sources I replied to you with, although I sent the links only.
These sources have been published in Academia.edu and one was even published in jstor.org.
The sources have been made by John Coleman Darnell, Stefan Jakob Wimmer, and Aren Max Wilson-Wright under the publishing of the American Oriental Society. Hence, it is not original research.
Discussion of John Coleman Daniel's: Two Early Alphabetic Inscriptions of Wadi el-Hôl: New Evidence for the origin of the Alphabet from the Western Desert of Egypt
I believe this discussion is of upmost importance due to it being the main basis for my recent edits, and hence, scrutinizing the reliability of said source is crucial for this article. Cnscrptr (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
wsr staves
I posted this above for a different glyph. Pottery makers marks are another, I think, good place to look. I liked this page because it shows both forms of what might be my two wsr AKA was sceptres, indicated. The fact that such different staffs had the same name makes me wonder if the looped one is a catchpole / rabies pole to lasso the beast, and the animal-headed one is a later symbolic one "holding" merely an image of its head. (This more symbolic version certainly appears clearer in relief.) Might tie into the sa scarf that the Anubis animal often wore, too. Which looks sometimes like a heavy neck yoke or "cone of shame" to keep it caged.
Hi, I've done some of that OR that I was saying needed to be done. Here I'm pasting from an email that I'm sending to some professors. (Unfortunately I can't link it here? I'm sure it'll be the first channel to come up if you search YouTube for Eunelos.)
I'm looking for some feedback on my work on the early development of the alphabet. I've made a few videos with introductory arguments on q, r, the esses, and w. My motivation has been the poor quality of proto-Sinaitic scholarship, and the Wikipedia page that reflects that quality.
My basic arguments filmed so far:
-Q is a pin, needle, or fibula
-R is a direct borrowing from a number of Egyptian glyphs that share that r shape and have the Egyptian sound value "rs"
-š is "breasts" (Brian E Colless also argues this)
-W is from the egyptain wsr staff, AKA the was scepter. There are two Egyptian glyphs with the value wsr; one is used in Wadi el-Hol and the other at Kuntillet Ajrud.
I'm looking for a senior writer so I can get my ideas published. I know not all of you are in paleography, but maybe if you're not you know someone. Thanks.
I agree that scholarship regarding Proto-Sinaitic has been lacking, especially in the field of linguistics and linguistic context, leading to nonsense words such as "pu", "ṯann", and "digg" as well as the whole "samk as fish" theory.
- Q is a line based on the reconstruction from Hebrew קַו "qaw", although it could have been based on a cord of wool or needle. The shape for qaw is likely what ultimately gave rise to the Phoenician glyph for q based on graphical similarities.
- This is an interesting theory. Via acrophony, resh is related to rosh, which comes from ra'š "head", hence making the connection with head-shaped glyphs plausible. However, we can also consider this possibility.
- Colless never argued that "breasts" represents the š sound, but rather ṯ/θ, which resembles the Arabic (ثدي) and Aramaic (תַּדָּא) words for breasts as well as the Proto-Semitic reconstruction ṯdʾ. Unless the sound shifts already occurred (by which 𓎛, representing ẖ, could also be lost), the breast glyph will never represent š.
- The descendent of samk from Egyptian djed has already been established, further corroborated by both PSin and Proto-Canaanite developing in the west where "dag" and possibly "nun" were the words for fish, ruling out the samk as fish theory. The Samk glyph has been found in the Proto-Canaanite Izbet Satrah though not in the Serabit El-Khadim, Wadi El-Hol, and Timna inscriptions of Proto-Sinaitic. If there are any more Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions, please list them below.
- We should weigh the evidence to discern the origin of waw. The open ends of the was glyph bear a striking resemblance to Proto-Canaanite and Phoenician Waw and even some instances in Proto-Sinaitic, making it plausible. However, most documents researching Proto-Sinaitic connect the waw glyphs (most accurately those without open ends) to the Egyptian mace hieroglyph.
"plausible. However, most documents researching Proto-Sinaitic connect the waw glyphs (most accurately those without open ends) to the Egyptian mace hieroglyph." A source as wsr gives you that "mace" form P8 and the was sceptre F12. My hypothesis accounts for both parsimoniously. If you told somebody "It's the wsr symbol," they could turn around and draw either one. That's why it's a convincing argument, not merely an alternate explanation.
Temerarius -- Any influence from Greek writing to Semitic would seem to be outside mainstream scholarship (the only such case I know of is small Greek vowel letters borrowed into Syriac as diacritics around 500 A.D.). In any case, the letters for sibilants were kind of scrambled when borrowed from Phoenician to Greek -- the letter Sigma takes its shape and alphabetic ordering from Phoenician Shin, but the name "sigma" seems to correspond most closely to Phoenician Samk. The Greek letter Xi would appear to correspond most closely in sound-value to Tsade, but takes its shape and alphabetic ordering from Samk, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Is the Izbet Sarteh ostracon from a dig or from the market? I know Jeanette Elayi's unprovenanced Phoenician arrowheads are fake because they... look fake (convictionless, confused, and modern), and have two very separated "teeth." If it were shin = tooth back then, somebody else would have done that at some point. (The shins that would have been illegible to an ancient person aren't merely Elayi's illustrations; I checked.) Be REALLY careful posting unprovenanced things, you can see how tenuous the scholarship is and how much damage it could do. "If there are any more Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions, please list them below." As for other Proto Sinaitic inscriptions, I've seen a couple of candidates, (pottery makers' marks too) the best site being Har Karkom. I've just uploaded a video about that. Go to YouTube @ Antiques Chodeshow "More proto-Sinaitic inscriptions" How can I post the YouTube link here?
How could s and š be confused going between Greek and Semitic? Big sigma actually matches the development of the djed-to-samek glyph within the Semitic scripts. They draw the upper lines sloppier, and the secondary descender that's not the stem writ ever larger. I think this is the line that became Hebrew samek and greek minuscule sigma. I've done two videos about the esses so far.
There was no significant influence of Semitic on Greek after the initial borrowing from Phoenician which was before 700 B.C., while there was no contrast between uppercase and lowercase Greek letters until the Byzantine period, after 700 A.D. That's a gap of well over 1,000 years! AnonMoos (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
h as hillul "jubilate" in Wadi el Hol
This one seems rather forced for a human-shaped figure, and I'd love to see there's any good reference to hillul meaning jubilate that early. Hieroglyph O2 caught my eye just now, it could make that shape. If it's that one they did a zigzag instead of straight lines on the stem. Frankly, I've never liked this one as h.
Temerarius (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I've just realized what might be significance of the ambiguous ls here.
Let's not forget that r and l are the same in Egyptian. That puts a different light on rs and ls that look the same. In #346, the way they come from below is more r-ish than l-ish. If there's some flexibility or confusion there among the scriptors, we could have something like mtrbʕlt, which is easy to see as resembling "Mother-Ba'alat" or "(to the) Mother, (to the) Lady."--a double-barrelled divine name like this is much more typical and expected kind of inscription than the mt = death interpretation that someone tried. Can't think of an mtr = mother word within the pertinent language families? Me neither, but though it reminds one of PIE, an -r suffix is probably productive in Egyptian at this time. (I'll point you to Chris Ehret's reconstructions, but not for the timing.) (mt = death in Eg https://postimg.cc/BXXbkKbm ; mwt = mother in Eg https://postimg.cc/0rNyKwY9 you can probably find both spelled with and without the detail of the w.)
Temerarius (talk) 02:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Interestingly, there's another Egyptian pillar (hieroglyph O30) that could be read acrophonically as s from sxnt. But visually, it's like w. My argument for the development of the djed-samek depends on the rope replacing the pillar itself as time goes on, watch my videos.
Temerarius (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Proto-Sinaitic, being primarily Semitic, must also have the glyphs translate to the same sound value, in this case, proper acrophony (the glyph must match a Semitic word that starts with that sound to represent it). The O30 glyph means support, matching the Hebrew word "semekh" for support/fulcrum. In this case, we'll have to read the Y-looking glyphs in their context to see whether Waw or Samekh fits more closely. Cnscrptr (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Infiynjte, when will you get that I'm offering novel interpretations here? I'm making claims. The author is an apologist; the book isn't worth reading outside the photos. They don't know about proto-Sinaitic.
I already knew your proposals were novel rather than academic. In that case, we obviously cannot do much with your interpretations since Wikipedia relies on published sources, which in this context refers to research, unless you publish well-substantiated papers, like you said before. Cnscrptr (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
What part was too novel for you? I'd be happy to walk you through any of it.
I haven't double checked anything yet but my first impresion on seing this blobby one on the upper right and lower left was they looked better than D1, D3, D19 and D20 "rs", "tp," et cetera for the blobby one in the evidence. I don't know what hieroglyph that is, I asked refdesk.
Temerarius (talk) 02:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
.JPG)
Temerarius (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
